Al Jazeera and BBC are two of my preferred news sources - the average quality of the articles are quite good. I tend to use three or four different news sources when looking at a hot topic...the differences can be quite telling.
I do find it interesting how one thing is said but another is communicated. I read God's Politics by Jim Wallis and loved it, particularly the concept of a 'moral center' that was neither 'left nor right'. However what was communicated via Sojourners was that the 'moral center' was U.S.-Democrat, mostly, which was unfortunate.
mountainguy
· 1 year ago
I have seen Campolo et al. as the prove that christianism is not the same as "righ-fundie-republicanism"... but I agree with you that endorsing politicians (no matter their political view) is still a form of Caesarism. I also love with this you say: "movement of love spread not through political coercion or leveraging power, but by sacrifice, martyrdom, and simple acts of charity".
new guy
· 1 year ago
Personally I think there IS a difference between today's "Christian left" (for lack of a better term) and the last 30 years of the religious right.
That being said, I think this article is extremely important because a generation from now, there may be no difference.
It seems to me that in 2008 in the United States, one could argue that genuine Christian values would dictate that we should vote for the Democratic candidate in this particular instance as the slightly better option between two flawed choices. But that is a slippery slope and only a misstep away from sliding all the way down into the mire of being identified with a political party.
I don't see how a follower of The Way can be very comfortable with ANY of the major players in American politics, but as citizens we can still make informed choices in the voting booth and cast votes in the hopes of minimizing the damage our country does in the world.
For me personally, I openly endorse Obama in this election, but I don't have the influence of a Tony Campolo (or even a well-liked pastor) so it's not as big a deal. But I'm also completely aware of Obama's many flaws so to paraphrase Cornell West, today I'm an Obama supporter, but the day after the election I will be his biggest critic.
And that's where I think we on the so-called religious left can differentiate ourselves from the Pat Robertson's of the world.
Just my $0.02.
smh00a
· 1 year ago
new guy - Thanks for the comment. You may be right regarding the situational nature of choosing to or not to vote in 2008. That's exactly the point David Fitch makes in his post today ... check it out. He said something very similar to you:
I must admit, after staunchly disagreeing with pres. Bush's approach to war and economy these last eight years, it might be incumbent on us all to vote for the preserving of the world from more American government induced violence and injustice.
You may also be interested in these words from Dr. Stanley Hauerwas, who has traditionally been categorized as one who urges Christians to escape the political process. This is his attitude in 2008:
“I’m told I’m supposed to be a 'sectarian fideistic tribalist,’ is the description of me, asking Christians to withdraw from the world. I wouldn’t mind withdrawing, but hell, we’re surrounded. There’s nowhere to go. The question is how to just keep going through, and you’re going to take some losses. So we have to be wilely as serpents on these matters. I’m not asking you to withdraw from politics. I’m just asking you to be there as a Christian."
Steve, Thanks for the great post. I really like it. I'm glad I'm not the only one who read/watches AJ. Thanks.
TomDuregger
· 1 year ago
"What is needed is a “back to the Bible” campaign showing that Jesus’ movement of love spread not through political coercion or leveraging power, but by sacrifice, martyrdom, and simple acts of charity." I agree. This is the way (by simply being the Body of Christ in the earth) that we are called to display the righteousness of God in this world, this is our political statement and political activism, endorsing and being ambassadors of the coming King! “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor.5:21) “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” (1 Jn 3:7) YOU ARE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM, IF YOU ARE… RIGHTEOUS. This is displaying the "norm" set by the King of Kings, the object of our devotion.
Slider
· 1 year ago
It's interesting how people believe that their political party will be the one to take them to the destination they want to go. I'm not sure how people can put so much confidence in a bunch of lying self servers. It's become all about the power not the service and every time we elect a new president abuse of power inevitibly occurs. Politics in this country are the biggest sham since Hugo Chavez conquered Venezuala. Does Tony Compolo honestly think his interests will be served by his selected politicians--get real. The first shall be last and the last shall be first... Until are "Christians" and politicians get a clue in this it will continue to be corrupted business as usual. Boycott now, your vote means squat.
toddh
· 1 year ago
Steve Holt!
Good post. Good questions.
Jarrod
· 1 year ago
My name is Jarrod Cochran. I am a pastor, writer, and activist within the progressive Christian movement. I want to speak out and say that I completely agree with Mr. Holt's assessment. Though I have great respect for my friends, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, and Brian McLaren; I feel that by publicly endorsing political candidates, they seem to be doing the same thing that we have criticized the Religous Right for doing.
What happened to the type of Jesus-following that caused us to be subversive, world-changing, and radical? When we publicly endorse a candidate it's almost as if we are saying "The politics of the kingdom of God as laid out by Jesus' Sermon on the Mount/Plain are great ideas to strive for, but very unrealistic. So, I publicly endorse (whomever's name) because they are the next best thing and a more tangible reality."
As a minister, writer, and public speaker, I would never use my position to tell someone who to vote for - or even tell them to vote (what better way to state that you believe the whole system is corrupt than by refusing to be a part of it?). When we publicly endorse candidates, we are indeed telling people who to vote for.
A left version of the Religious Right is just as wrong. We need radicals, not just politics as usual. When I declare that I belong to the progressive Christian movement, I am saying that I don't belong to some religious political initiative on the right or the left; I belong to a movement that is honestly seeking to follow that radical, controversial, empire-toppling rabbi from Nazareth.
My thoughts and prayers are with Tony, Jim, and Brian. I love them, but must respectfully disagree with the path they have chosen to travel. It has often been said of the political voting system, that between the candidates you vote for "the lesser of two evils." Well, regardless of whether you voted for the lesser evil you're still voted for evil. Jesus himself said that we cannot serve two masters. Jesus is my master and he upsets the status-quo. My political alliegance is to him alone.
All Comments
I do find it interesting how one thing is said but another is communicated. I read God's Politics by Jim Wallis and loved it, particularly the concept of a 'moral center' that was neither 'left nor right'. However what was communicated via Sojourners was that the 'moral center' was U.S.-Democrat, mostly, which was unfortunate.
That being said, I think this article is extremely important because a generation from now, there may be no difference.
It seems to me that in 2008 in the United States, one could argue that genuine Christian values would dictate that we should vote for the Democratic candidate in this particular instance as the slightly better option between two flawed choices. But that is a slippery slope and only a misstep away from sliding all the way down into the mire of being identified with a political party.
I don't see how a follower of The Way can be very comfortable with ANY of the major players in American politics, but as citizens we can still make informed choices in the voting booth and cast votes in the hopes of minimizing the damage our country does in the world.
For me personally, I openly endorse Obama in this election, but I don't have the influence of a Tony Campolo (or even a well-liked pastor) so it's not as big a deal. But I'm also completely aware of Obama's many flaws so to paraphrase Cornell West, today I'm an Obama supporter, but the day after the election I will be his biggest critic.
And that's where I think we on the so-called religious left can differentiate ourselves from the Pat Robertson's of the world.
Just my $0.02.
Thanks for the comment. You may be right regarding the situational nature of choosing to or not to vote in 2008. That's exactly the point David Fitch makes in his post today ... check it out. He said something very similar to you:
You may also be interested in these words from Dr. Stanley Hauerwas, who has traditionally been categorized as one who urges Christians to escape the political process. This is his attitude in 2008:
Read the whole thing, though.
Thanks for the comments, folks.
Thanks for the great post. I really like it. I'm glad I'm not the only one who read/watches AJ. Thanks.
I agree. This is the way (by simply being the Body of Christ in the earth) that we are called to display the righteousness of God in this world, this is our political statement and political activism, endorsing and being ambassadors of the coming King! “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor.5:21) “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” (1 Jn 3:7) YOU ARE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM, IF YOU ARE… RIGHTEOUS. This is displaying the "norm" set by the King of Kings, the object of our devotion.
Good post. Good questions.
What happened to the type of Jesus-following that caused us to be subversive, world-changing, and radical? When we publicly endorse a candidate it's almost as if we are saying "The politics of the kingdom of God as laid out by Jesus' Sermon on the Mount/Plain are great ideas to strive for, but very unrealistic. So, I publicly endorse (whomever's name) because they are the next best thing and a more tangible reality."
As a minister, writer, and public speaker, I would never use my position to tell someone who to vote for - or even tell them to vote (what better way to state that you believe the whole system is corrupt than by refusing to be a part of it?). When we publicly endorse candidates, we are indeed telling people who to vote for.
A left version of the Religious Right is just as wrong. We need radicals, not just politics as usual. When I declare that I belong to the progressive Christian movement, I am saying that I don't belong to some religious political initiative on the right or the left; I belong to a movement that is honestly seeking to follow that radical, controversial, empire-toppling rabbi from Nazareth.
My thoughts and prayers are with Tony, Jim, and Brian. I love them, but must respectfully disagree with the path they have chosen to travel. It has often been said of the political voting system, that between the candidates you vote for "the lesser of two evils." Well, regardless of whether you voted for the lesser evil you're still voted for evil. Jesus himself said that we cannot serve two masters. Jesus is my master and he upsets the status-quo. My political alliegance is to him alone.